Consciousness

[DBT]

That's just an article referring to David Skrbina's argument for the importance of panpsychism. It's still a philosophical argument.

We still have no scientific basis for panpsychism.

never said they did

So there is no point to panpsychism being promoted as a viable explanation for consciousness and mind. It's just another philosophical model of something that is not understood, how consciousness is formed.....like how many Angels can dance on the head of a pin. We know pins exist.

 

[untermensche]

It makes sense but it also makes consciousness completely unnecessary.

The consciousness that cannot move anything is not needed by anything. It just watches and feels what other things do. It thinks it is moving the arm, but that is just a funny joke the brain is playing for some reason.

Why? How do you know that you aren't the physical and the mental? What you do as a physical being reflects mentally, like looking into a mirror.

What I said was a consciousness that has no power to move something, no power to affect change, is a consciousness that is not needed at all.

Either consciousness can move the arm as it experiences it and has a purpose, in terms of survival, or consciousness moves nothing and has no purpose, in terms of survival. It is something the brain spends a lot of energy creating for no survival advantage at all.

It is as simple as that.

 

[George S]

Either consciousness can move the arm as it experiences it and has a purpose, in terms of survival, or consciousness moves nothing and has no purpose, in terms of survival. It is something the brain spends a lot of energy creating for no survival advantage at all.

It is as simple as that.

Exactly!

Evolution is about survival when the environment changes over generations.
Consciousness is about survival when the environment changes over milliseconds.
Evolution is strategic.
Consciousness is tactical.

Evolution has produced an on-board analog computer. It has certain built-in features. It produces a model of a point-of-view of a body identified as the point-of-view of the computer itself. Consciousness, all the qualia in all the senses, is only half of the survival issue. It is capable of being programmed. It can take a complex task like dance or driving and make it unconscious -- learn it. It is the planner, running what-if scenarios (day dreams) and acting to affect the future by making a plan inspired by the day dream. Sometimes the plan is to avoid repeating an actual scenario -- "I won't do that again." Habits are subroutines -- former plans made unconscious.

We are a passenger on a bus we are not driving. Driving is left to the previously programmed driver subroutine. "I" am able to give the that subroutine of a map of where I want us to go. Almost always the driver goes the right way. Sometimes he forgets the big picture and has to be reminded of the plan.

 

[untermensche]

Either consciousness can move the arm as it experiences it and has a purpose, in terms of survival, or consciousness moves nothing and has no purpose, in terms of survival. It is something the brain spends a lot of energy creating for no survival advantage at all.

It is as simple as that.

Exactly!

Evolution is about survival when the environment changes over generations.
Consciousness is about survival when the environment changes over milliseconds.
Evolution is strategic.
Consciousness is tactical.

Evolution has produced an on-board analog computer. It has certain built-in features. It produces a model of a point-of-view of a body identified as the point-of-view of the computer itself. Consciousness, all the qualia in all the senses, is only half of the survival issue. It is capable of being programmed. It can take a complex task like dance or driving and make it unconscious -- learn it. It is the planner, running what-if scenarios (day dreams) and acting to affect the future by making a plan inspired by the day dream. Sometimes the plan is to avoid repeating an actual scenario -- "I won't do that again." Habits are subroutines -- former plans made unconscious.

We are a passenger on a bus we are not driving. Driving is left to the previously programmed driver subroutine. "I" am able to give the that subroutine of a map of where I want us to go. Almost always the driver goes the right way. Sometimes he forgets the big picture and has to be reminded of the plan.

We are that which experiences and thinks it is moving the thoughts and the body. At times.

Sure you need maps and instincts and recognition of food and threats and ability to navigate.

But you don't need this thing "consciousness" that is aware of it all yet can affect no change, push no button, make nothing happen.

You need a "computer" capable of surviving in the world, but you don't need something aware of that survival thinking it is making decisions and moving the thoughts and body, yet really able to do nothing.

 

[ryan]

never said they did

So there is no point to panpsychism being promoted as a viable explanation for consciousness and mind. It's just another philosophical model of something that is not understood, how consciousness is formed.....like how many Angels can dance on the head of a pin. We know pins exist.

A philisophical theory has to be rational.

 

[rousseau]

Here's recent stuff.

How do I love thee .....

So subconscious planning is out, sub conscious programming next steps is out, ....... finally something, experiencing, that actually requires consciousness -setting aside planning and controlling which are probably just punching out existing to-dos -

Finally why I do love thee, rejecting illusion just because one doesn't see benefits for one doing as other's are seen to expect. If that were conscious it would take place after the expectations had been expressed. We don't experience in real time, we experience after information arrives permitting us to experience.
…..
At will indeed. Its as if the the great faerie were beside you. You don't will, you just do. What kind of doo doo is that? If it's you and you did it then either you willed it or you are a machine. As you know I'm a great believer in machines. So you wouldn't want to agree with me would you
......
isn't the effort you exert trying to remember actually a rationalization for not being able to access a memory you believe you possess? With our wonderful brains and words to spare we spend a lot of time masturbating this way. Do you really want to argue such rationalization is actually will?
…..
How cold does ice need be before hitting it with a hammer shatters it? Experimented with water in HS. Water shrinks until about 4 degrees C then expands as temperature drops to about zero degrees then it expands substantially just below that until it begins to shrink again around -7 degrees. Interesting physical dynamic donchathink.
…..
Think of it this way: Consciousness is the butterfly effect of the brain leading to feedback leading to other activity relevant to one's situation. Oh, wow.
…..
We don't usually start with "its within the realm of possibilities" without positing how and why one believes it is there based on some evidence. A rational possibility needs rest on some rational basis. When one pulls something out of one's excretory orifice we usually look away. Face it, something pulled from there is neither rational nor a possibility because its a self evident waste of another's time. Just like that we've gone from rational possibility to self evident waste of another's time.

BTW your inference that panpsychism and integrated information theory have any relation to  Information Theory,  Claude Shannon is not true on its face.

One would do better looking bases of consciousness if one looked at Chaos theory and the consequences of feedback in deterministic systems. Think of the situation this way: Consciousness is an awareness of one's situation in ones social world being processed as response to those conditions.
….
There are many attendings, several awarenesses and just one, if any at all, consciousness. As to why one might believe consciousness is there I suggest you read on the social man, Chaos, and feedback in the context of evolution. Oh, and those conditions are the social aspects of which one is aware. Chaos out of deterministic, even mechanistic behavior, comes from feedback. Humans, maybe other life forms, are trying to interpret feedback on the fly. Don't hurt yourself.

Oh, by the bye, one needn't resort to faeries or quanta to find source(s) of consciousness.
….
parts more parts, states more states so many parts and states. Oh, and processes. What is being done here? Look, science, not philosophy, is already past quarks so an intellectual redo couched as philosophy isn't going to do much good.

Ask yourself what does consciousness effect.
….

I'd summarize this as a lurch towards a Chaotic frame for consciousness as a window into feedback in social behavior of the person probably as justification for why something like consciousness might be preserved as a phenotype as part of how one copes with one's primary threats, other humans.

There are a couple logical jabs in the set as well.

OK rousseau?

Thank you. It would seem we agree on how people work.

I will be sure to inflict this information on as many people as I can, as the years go by

 

[another1]

Yeah ryan thank God that is over. No need for me to say anything relative at all now. Hey why such a push to lead people to magic? In our entertainment, ryan? Notice that happening at all? This has to do with consciousness, so I can ask. Do you see the stuff they're putting out nowadays? People want it, yeah, but in THAT quantity? I could get by on infinity crystals for the next two years. Those would fully satisfy me in my leisure. My entertainment. But open a social media page and look around sometime. Magic appears to be smothering things. Seems like one little group of people are responsible for everything on TV, and they already mastered ways to make their point to you in picture links you'll never click, so ignor9ing it isn't possible. Susceptible little children are cornered by it. Kids build their minds with movies and not books because half of them learn visually. Good luck getting much visual learning in public schools I've seen. Not just a visual learning problem. Just a disinterest issue that is never addressed in schools. Kids have screwy minds and they can't be forced to conform. If they're to be taught, the curriculum conforms to them. Another thing altogether, but as for what actually catches their attention? Nothing in school, until puberty. By then you can count them out. They're gonners. Totally corrupted and ready to accept GOD, ryan. Once they're completely broken down by this incessant magic entertainment it doesn't take much. There is also an argument for how this entertainment problem affects the substance of Religion. Lots of Religious people complain just like you should. You can worry either way, which makes it a perfect thing to worry about. And oh should you.

Why so important to completely tenderize children in this way? My Mom used to take a fork and tenderize these poor pork chops in the kitchen. I always felt like she was mad at them or something. I think she took her tension out on the cutting board in retrospect but how was I to know at the time? Half my childhood was listening to Mother smacking that fucking fork into pork chops, to get that tenderizing powder and seasoning in there nice and deep. She made a sinister breaded pork chop. Choice.

Now my adult life has the same constant and irritating sound. But now it isn't Mom, and the pork chops are metaphorically the minds of children. Pork chops being hammered everywhere I look. They've accelerated the tenderizing 5,000%, since I fist started noticing. Poor kids don't have a chance. This is of course what has been going on for a long time, but now it is a violent and hurried kind of pounding. Do you consider magic fun? I zap my fingers at the Goddamn wall 200x a day and still none! For years I've tried. Not even the faint outline of a portal to magic happyland appearing from out of nowhere. So why should I really give a fuck about this bombardment of magic fiction? It is excessive. Seriously man, make a note of every bullshit magic thing you see in just one hour of surfing, and that should seem like enough to last a year. Zombies aren't cool either. They have a hand in this. I'll tell you about them next if you like.

 

[DBT]

Why? How do you know that you aren't the physical and the mental? What you do as a physical being reflects mentally, like looking into a mirror.

What I said was a consciousness that has no power to move something, no power to affect change, is a consciousness that is not needed at all.

Either consciousness can move the arm as it experiences it and has a purpose, in terms of survival, or consciousness moves nothing and has no purpose, in terms of survival. It is something the brain spends a lot of energy creating for no survival advantage at all.

It is as simple as that.

But it's not consciousness that moves the arm. It is the brain that moves the arm. Just like it is the brain that forms consciousness and moves body parts in response to perceived needs and wants.

 

[DBT]

So there is no point to panpsychism being promoted as a viable explanation for consciousness and mind. It's just another philosophical model of something that is not understood, how consciousness is formed.....like how many Angels can dance on the head of a pin. We know pins exist.

A philisophical theory has to be rational.

Rational is not necessarily factual. A fictional novel with fictional characters and fictional events may be quite rational but nevertheless true and factual when compared with the objective world.

 

[untermensche]

What I said was a consciousness that has no power to move something, no power to affect change, is a consciousness that is not needed at all.

Either consciousness can move the arm as it experiences it and has a purpose, in terms of survival, or consciousness moves nothing and has no purpose, in terms of survival. It is something the brain spends a lot of energy creating for no survival advantage at all.

It is as simple as that.

But it's not consciousness that moves the arm. It is the brain that moves the arm. Just like it is the brain that forms consciousness and moves body parts in response to perceived needs and wants.

That hypothesis is fine.

But then you have to accept the logical consequences of it.

A consciousness that is just formed but affects nothing is a consciousness that was never needed to be formed in the first place. It serves no purpose at all.

Certainly a brain would need to make many computations to survive in the world.

But it has no need of something that is aware (consciousness) of any of it.

The computations are necessary.

The awareness part that can affect nothing is not.

So your hypothesis creates a consciousness that is not needed in the least.

It exists for some reason but serves no purpose for survival.

Some strange evolutionary mystery.

On the other hand a consciousness that can move the arm, make conclusions and plans and carry them out, has a purpose in terms of survival.

There would be a reason for it to exist.

As opposed to your hypothesis.

 

[DBT]

A consciousness that is just formed but affects nothing is a consciousness that was never needed to be formed in the first place. It serves no purpose at all.

There lies the error.

I didn't say that consciousness is not useful. Or that it does nothing. Or that it serves no purpose. Just the opposite. It provides the brain with a virtual model of world and self which with to respond to.

So it's not consciousness that acts, but the brain through the means of the conscious model of the world and self that brain itself is generating.

If you can see the distinction.

 

[untermensche]

A consciousness that is just formed but affects nothing is a consciousness that was never needed to be formed in the first place. It serves no purpose at all.

There lies the error.

I didn't say that consciousness is not useful. Or that it does nothing. Or that it serves no purpose. Just the opposite. It provides the brain with a virtual model of world and self which with to respond to.

So it's not consciousness that acts, but the brain through the means of the conscious model of the world and self that brain itself is generating.

If you can see the distinction.

It doesn't matter one bit what you say after you say "consciousness can do nothing".

A consciousness that can initiate no action is a consciousness that has no purpose at all. It is not needed for anything.

You can't escape this conclusion.

It is the logical consequence of your hypothesis.

Live with it or change your hypothesis.

 

[fromderinside]

no, no, no, no,...... consciousness is an awareness and or a prediction. Based on it one can act. One is the person, the primary actors of the person are the twitches and squirts. One may be conscious of some of them, but, consciousness did not initiate them. Consciousness is either after the fact, or., an awareness of things coming together as in an understanding of what's going on, or, a preview/review of things. One might say one makes a conscious decision, but, one has to act to execute that decision.

As far as I'm concerned consciousness is like a movie of things recently past or a preview of things that may come or be. It has lots of face validity but no construct nor functional validity in the theatre of living. Metabolism is what drives life.

 

[ryan]

A philisophical theory has to be rational.

Rational is not necessarily factual. A fictional novel with fictional characters and fictional events may be quite rational but nevertheless true and factual when compared with the objective world.

The reasoning stems from certain scientific and self-evident propositions.

There is a brain and a mind. The brain produces mind (M) but while it produces M it is still a brain.

Agree?

 

[ryan]

no, no, no, no,...... consciousness is an awareness and or a prediction. Based on it one can act. One is the person, the primary actors of the person are the twitches and squirts. One may be conscious of some of them, but, consciousness did not initiate them. Consciousness is either after the fact, or., an awareness of things coming together as in an understanding of what's going on, or, a preview/review of things. One might say one makes a conscious decision, but, one has to act to execute that decision.

As far as I'm concerned consciousness is like a movie of things recently past or a preview of things that may come or be. It has lots of face validity but no construct nor functional validity in the theatre of living. Metabolism is what drives life.

So then why did you say a few posts ago, "Ask yourself what does consciousness effect."? This seems like you are saying that the consciousness brings about a physical change.

 

[untermensche]

no, no, no, no,...... consciousness is an awareness and or a prediction.

It is that which is aware of many things, from tickles to the hooting of owls. That which experiences.

Based on it one can act.

Which "one" are you talking about, because the "one" I'm talking about is also the same "one" that experiences.

And the "one" that thinks it can move the arm at "will".

One is the person, the primary actors of the person are the twitches and squirts.

Sure, the "one" that experiences and thinks it moves the arm is commonly called the "person".

How the person acts is a question unanswered at present.

Calling it twitches and squirts is inventing knowledge.

One may be conscious of some of them, but, consciousness did not initiate them.

The "one" aka consciousness certainly is under the belief it is the initiator of action.

So you are claiming this belief is merely some joke the brain likes to play?

 

[fromderinside]

A little lettuce and you have a baloney sandwich. Consciousness is no more than a state of mind in the thinking process of the mind which is carried out by the nervous system of the one by converting energy to motion and force of the machine. To say it any other way leaves open the notion that a machine has consciousness and controls itself which all designers and engineers know is patently untrue. Since the human's only designer is random happenstance over time and conditions through a process of reproduction. It certainly doesn't make sense that a human is different from a machine in that it is a material construction in a world with demonstrated physical laws that one can test through experiment.

 

[DBT]

There lies the error.

I didn't say that consciousness is not useful. Or that it does nothing. Or that it serves no purpose. Just the opposite. It provides the brain with a virtual model of world and self which with to respond to.

So it's not consciousness that acts, but the brain through the means of the conscious model of the world and self that brain itself is generating.

If you can see the distinction.

It doesn't matter one bit what you say after you say "consciousness can do nothing".

Where did I say that?

A consciousness that can initiate no action is a consciousness that has no purpose at all. It is not needed for anything.

Consciousness doesn't exist without the presence of a brain generating consciousness.

The brain is the agency of both consciousness and motor action. The two functions can even be separated. Consciousness without the ability to move limbs in relation to desires and needs, and under certain conditions, actions that are not conscious; unconscious actions.

You can't escape this conclusion.

It is your conclusion. A conclusion that has no real relationship to what I said.

 

[DBT]

Rational is not necessarily factual. A fictional novel with fictional characters and fictional events may be quite rational but nevertheless true and factual when compared with the objective world.

The reasoning stems from certain scientific and self-evident propositions.

There is a brain and a mind. The brain produces mind (M) but while it produces M it is still a brain.

Agree?

Not really.

Your self evident propositions can and do have explanations other than panpsychism. Which itself does not explain consciousness.

 

[ryan]

The reasoning stems from certain scientific and self-evident propositions.

There is a brain and a mind. The brain produces mind (M) but while it produces M it is still a brain.

Agree?

Not really.

Your self evident propositions can and do have explanations other than panpsychism. Which itself does not explain consciousness.

Forget panpsychism for a moment, do you believe that the mental state is an intermediary state that is physically necessary to link the stimulus to the physical reaction of the stimulus? Or is there just a physical process with a parallel mind? Or is there just a physical process?